Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 6:24:46 GMT -5
I would assume that the question of whether or not "oppression" is an appropriate term to use in this context comes down to people's basic political worldview. If you believe that it is a state's/government's/society's inherent purpose/duty to ensure all of their members live in relative egality (as is the more left/ socialist view), then it's fair to say that a government/society that isn't doing that, is oppressing a certain group. If, on the other hand, you believe that people are inherently responsible for themselves (as is the more libertarian/ conservative view), then using the term "oppression" for not being "accomodating enough" (so to speak) to the needs of a certain group, doesn't make much sense. I would love to hear how exactly you would define "oppression" in a more abstract way, @causticcrip ? "Being constantly held down by the system" still feels relatively vague to me. What is "the system" and what exactly do you mean by "being held down"? Is my (very short and simplified ) description of the left/ socialist worldview something you would agree with or does your definition of "oppression" come from a different place? I do believe it is the government's duty to support its citizens to contribute to society and the economy, and this is the inherent purpose of government and why taxes exist. I am reluctant to use the term 'equality' here because that can become a political argument for withholding support from those who need more than the average person. By ensuring accessibility (to transport and architecture), enforcement (not just provision) of anti-discrimination legislation, financial support (for assistive technology, personal assistants, legal aid) and free healthcare, you create a level playing field where disabled people can generate tax revenue and economic growth. This does not only benefit disabled people, but their families too, who may otherwise have to reduce their working hours to support them, for example. I think the left/right spectrum has been rendered largely meaningless in the wake of globalisation and neoliberalism, but these ideas are compatible with a well-regulated capitalist economy, which gives you some indication as to my political persuasion. If I had to pick a side, though, I'd say I'm moderately left-wing. Bringing us back to my personal definition of oppression, I would say it is the severe underrepresentation in the economy and mainstream society of a minority group as the result of prejudice, discrimination and government policy. I realise this is nothing like the oppression of the past or of authoritarian regimes, I'm referring to socioeconomic and cultural oppression in Westernised countries exclusively.
|
|
|
Post by missparkle on Dec 12, 2019 9:00:59 GMT -5
I would assume that the question of whether or not "oppression" is an appropriate term to use in this context comes down to people's basic political worldview. If you believe that it is a state's/government's/society's inherent purpose/duty to ensure all of their members live in relative egality (as is the more left/ socialist view), then it's fair to say that a government/society that isn't doing that, is oppressing a certain group. If, on the other hand, you believe that people are inherently responsible for themselves (as is the more libertarian/ conservative view), then using the term "oppression" for not being "accomodating enough" (so to speak) to the needs of a certain group, doesn't make much sense. I would love to hear how exactly you would define "oppression" in a more abstract way, @causticcrip ? "Being constantly held down by the system" still feels relatively vague to me. What is "the system" and what exactly do you mean by "being held down"? Is my (very short and simplified ) description of the left/ socialist worldview something you would agree with or does your definition of "oppression" come from a different place? I do believe it is the government's duty to support its citizens to contribute to society and the economy, and this is the inherent purpose of government and why taxes exist. I am reluctant to use the term 'equality' here because that can become a political argument for withholding support from those who need more than the average person. By ensuring accessibility (to transport and architecture), enforcement (not just provision) of anti-discrimination legislation, financial support (for assistive technology, personal assistants, legal aid) and free healthcare, you create a level playing field where disabled people can generate tax revenue and economic growth. This does not only benefit disabled people, but their families too, who may otherwise have to reduce their working hours to support them, for example. I think the left/right spectrum has been rendered largely meaningless in the wake of globalisation and neoliberalism, but these ideas are compatible with a well-regulated capitalist economy, which gives you some indication as to my political persuasion. If I had to pick a side, though, I'd say I'm moderately left-wing. Bringing us back to my personal definition of oppression, I would say it is the severe underrepresentation in the economy and mainstream society of a minority group as the result of prejudice, discrimination and government policy. I realise this is nothing like the oppression of the past or of authoritarian regimes, I'm referring to socioeconomic and cultural oppression in Westernised countries exclusively.
Throughout the history, perfect society has never existed, nor I believe it ever will. The idea of equality and equal chances for everyone is noble, but illusion, and society that treats all it's members equally is utopia. The sooner one realizes the world is not ideal and certainly not fair, the better!
It would be great if everyone within given society would have same opportunity for quality education, high level free health care, etc, etc. Except for personal reasons that I absolutely understand, I just wonder why you find your expectations of society higher priority than some others? Poor mother would probably find free education for her child priority. You would find it building ramps in downtown. Who says one of you is "more" or "less" right? At the end of the day, it all comes down to budget and its distribution and it is clear that "optimization formula" for it is not so simple. So I wouldn't say it is deliberate "prejudice, discrimination and government policy", those are some serious accusations. But, I can't be sure, maybe I am just too naive.
Enforcement of anti-discrimination legislation is also something that troubles me. I can hardly believe that for example forcing employer to hire pwd, at free job market of capitalism, is solution for anything. I believe it is up to pwd to show on its personal example that they can do the job as good as anyone else. And there are numerous examples of it, many even on this forum, pwds who are really highly professionally accomplished.
I am of course not saying that you, or I, or anyone else, shouldn't try to make our local societies and the global society better for all. But I don't understand why to do it feeling as member of oppressed group, rather than integral part of imperfect society. I hope you are also aware that your imperfect society has done more to your oppressed minority than many other societies have done for their majority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 14:11:35 GMT -5
I see capitalism blamed for a lot of injustices, and I would assume by the title of the book you’re referencing that you would agree? What economic system do you feel has treated pwds better in history? Is there a socialist or communist country who has proven to be more supportive and empowering of pwds than capitalist countries that you would ideally like to model after? No, I'm only reading the book, I don't necessarily agree with the view of that book. I believe policies that support and empower disabled people are compatible with a well-regulated, high tax capitalist economy. Disabled citizens of communist countries of the past (and present) experience the same social barriers as those of capitalist ones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 14:20:11 GMT -5
I think the left/right spectrum has been rendered largely meaningless in the wake of globalisation and neoliberalism, but these ideas are compatible with a well-regulated capitalist economy, which gives you some indication as to my political persuasion. If I had to pick a side, though, I'd say I'm moderately left-wing. Bringing us back to my personal definition of oppression, I would say it is the severe underrepresentation in the economy and mainstream society of a minority group as the result of prejudice, discrimination and government policy. I realise this is nothing like the oppression of the past or of authoritarian regimes, I'm referring to socioeconomic and cultural oppression in Westernised countries exclusively. I see capitalism blamed for a lot of injustices, and I would assume by the title of the book you’re referencing that you would agree? What economic system do you feel has treated pwds better in history? Is there a socialist or communist country who has proven to be more supportive and empowering of pwds than capitalist countries that you would ideally like to model after? @mrniceguy, I just wanted to point out one thing: the government does not limit a pwd’s income. They have set limits of how much government assistance someone can have if they make more than that limit. That’s true for all people, not just pwds. The income is not limited, the free stuff is limited. I personally believe we have horrible work incentives to get pwds into the work force by setting these limits lower than what I think is reasonable, so your point is not lost on me. But you can go to law school and be a rich lawyer, the government is not holding you back or preventing you from making lots of money- they just won’t pay for your other stuff. I don’t think this is oppression. I get what you're saying and I mostly agree. When asking PWDs that don't work what is keeping them from working, one of the top answers is fear of loss of healthcare. While they theoretically could get the high paying job to cover long-term care on their own, that's a rare feat. Using myself as an example, I make a good living where I am and am in a unique situation in that I'm able to buy Medicaid coverage in my state (Medicaid and VA are the only insurers that will cover LTC). WI has one of the most liberal earnings and asset limits and I'm at the very top of them right now. But there's a huge gap between eligibility and what it would take to pay out of pocket. If I were to lose my LTC coverage by making $2000 more per year, I would need to come up with around $30k/year to make up for it. I honestly don't think I have that earning potential, MOST people don't. And to be honest, I'm scared because we have a couple rounds of pay raises coming up. How fucked is that that I have to worry about getting a raise? It's about opportunity. The same argument has been made about poor/minority/inner city communities. No one expressly says "You aren't allowed to succeed" but they're not given the tools to succeed (equal education, transportation, infrastructure, etc.). Maybe my definition is off but that feels like oppression to me.
|
|
|
Post by propheticstature on Dec 13, 2019 14:55:43 GMT -5
I'm reading A Very Capitalist Condition: A History and Politics of Disability by Roddy Slorach and happened upon the following paragraph: "Those who believe disability has always existed, for example, apply the term uncritically to societies and historical periods where the term or concept was unknown. This approach is fundamentally mistaken. Even today, the majority of the world’s population living in the Global South may refer to blind or 'slow' people or those with walking difficulties, but have no general term equivalent to 'disability' or 'disabled people' in their language or culture."I'm aware that members of PD hail from a variety of nations and cultures, and I would like to know what you all think about the accuracy of the above extract. Without an equivalent for the English term 'disability', does this have a negative or positive impact on how disabled people are viewed by the nondisabled minority? Or is this statement simply incorrect? Personally, I think identifying as a disabled person helps to communicate the idea we belong to an oppressed minority group as we attempt to change attitudes and tackle discrimination. Our use of language is a vehicle for controlling the narrative surrounding disability by subverting its original connotations and associations as a label. Would you agree that lacking a term similar/equivalent to 'disability' in certain languages makes it more difficult to alter society's perceptions? I'd very much like to hear some literal translations in other languages of terms associated with 'disability'. Quoting the OP here because the discussion's been fast and loose (in a good way!) This reminds me of a part of an Adam Curtis documentary (either Hypernormalization or Century of the Self, for the life of me I can't remember which) where as part of new therapy/guru/new age techniques of the 1970s, people were told to "let go" of their egos and relations in different ways, and to look inward towards their self. This therapist invited black radicals and revolutionaries into the mix and found that they didn't respond as well, because during these therapy group sessions the black radicals were expected to give up precisely what made them, and their message, so powerful: their solidarity as a class. While we all have our quirks to our own disabilities, I think being viewed as a class is much more effective for achieving real progress--politically or socially. People with physical disabilities can fight for accessible housing, and people with developmental disabilities can fight for simple access to health care and/or acceptance, but all of those considered "disabled" can fight for both things at once much easier under an umbrella.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2019 5:40:42 GMT -5
Here's another interesting extract from the same book, though I'm beginning to feel the author jumps to conclusions somewhat quickly:
The new working class creating this wealth, however, was excluded from any control or say over what was produced and how, leading to huge numbers of deaths and injuries. Others marginalised or excluded from production, on the grounds that their existing impairments made their labour less profitable, were marginalised or excluded from wider society. New professions and industries classified, regulated and graded individual human capacities according to their relationship with production. The new world, from the fields of work to science and entertainment, justified and promoted discrimination against social groups identified as different or as a threat to new social norms. In this way, capitalism created disability as a particular form of social oppression.
For some context, this follows a discussion of disability in relation to the growth of industrialisation and capitalism in the 19th and early 20th century. Let me know your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by linda on Dec 15, 2019 15:05:59 GMT -5
This is indeed a very interesting question! The Japanese term „shōgaisha“ is used for physical and mental or intellectual disabilities and can be distinguished further in „shintai shōgaisha“ for physically disabled and „seishin shōgaisha“ for mentally disabled people. Interestingly enough, the character „shō“ means „division“ or „barrier“, same character as in „shōji“, which are the movable paperwalls in traditional Japanese houses. „gai“ means damage, harm, injury. The Japanse also have another term, somehow a gentle description, which reveals so much of the culture: „karada no fujiyū na hito“ – a person who‘s body is not free. And here I came across a very interesting explanation regarding the term in Chinese from an article: „The progressive laws of the 1990s are largely a result of pressure from the CDPF, as was the abandonment of the previously common term canfei (‘handicapped and useless’), in favour of canjiren (‘disabled people’).“ Source: aeon.co/essays/what-is-life-like-for-disabled-people-in-chinaYes, that's what I was thinking of. Those terms were all invented in the 20th century as equivalents of "disability" influenced by the discourse in the US and Europe, and to replace older discriminatory words. Do you actually know which terms have been used previously, devogirl? That would be very interesting to know. I think an expression like „karada no fujiyū na hito“ would be very likely to have been used for a long time. But I wonder about the more discriminatory words.
|
|
|
Post by devogirl on Dec 15, 2019 22:35:27 GMT -5
I don’t know for certain but I’m pretty sure that is a modern euphemistic phrase. It sounds to me like “differently abled.” There is an older term haijin which is equivalent to cripple in English but can also refer to an addict. If you’re interested in disability studies there is a book called Deaf in Japan that is a good overview of that community. There’s a very short chapter that touches briefly on the history of disability concepts in Japan.
|
|